Thursday, March 19, 2009 Obama to propose over $1.3 Trillion in new taxesBy News Release :: 65 Views :: National News, National Politics Tuesday, March 17th 2009 Americans for Prosperity

The White House budget estimate of $646 billion in higher energy taxes under the guise of cap-and-trade always looked like a lowball. Now the deputy director of the White House National Economic Council, Jason Furman, is giving us a glimpse at the real number, telling Senate staff the energy tax scheme would actually raise "two-to-three times" the budget's official $646 billion revenue estimate. Dow Jones reports that 5 people at the meeting confirmed the statement.

That would mean the actual tax hike would run well into the trillions, roughly between $1.3 trillion and $1.9 trillion between fiscal years 2012 and 2019 by Furman's own estimate.

Remember that these are just the costs for the first 8 years of a 40 year program that gets much more expensive over time. This is the final knock-out blow for a wobbly U.S. economy, and the more people learn the facts the more strongly they'll oppose it.

RELATED: Obama's Energy Tax

Friday, February 27th 2009

The 2010 Obama budget reveals the major tax hike that Pelosi, Reid, and Obama are counting on to fund the outrageous bailout and stimulus spending that is propelling federal spending to record levels-27.7 percent of GDP in 2009, an all-time record other than the four peak years of World War II.

The tax hike is a broad-based energy tax that will wallop every American who fills a gas tank, pays an electric bill, or buys any product that has to be grown, shipped, or manufactured.

The mechanism is cap-and-trade, which is like a tax on coal, oil, and natural gas but instead of being set at a specific amount, the total level of use is capped and companies are forced to pay the government for emissions permits-which Wall Street wizards at companies like AIG and Goldman Sachs can in turn trade on sophisticated exchanges and derivative markets.

White House Budget Director Peter Orzcag admitted that decreasing carbon emissions imposes costs on the economy, and "much of those costs will be passed along to consumers in the form of higher prices for energy and energy-intensive goods."

After enactment of the Budget, the Administration will work expeditiously with key stakeholders and the Congress to develop an economy-wide emissions reduction program to reduce greenhouse gas emissions approximately 14 percent below 2005 levels by 2020, and approximately 83 percent below 2005 levels by 2050.

The economic impact of such a policy would be devastating. Even using the Obama administration's own official numbers, it would amount to a tax hike of $645 billion over the first 8 years, about $80 billion per year--and the White House has since admitted the real tax hike could be two or three times as much. That's just the first 8 years of a program that runs through 2050. As the cap becomes more and more strict over time, those costs would skyrocket into many trillions of dollars.

While we don't have numbers yet on the new proposal, the cost of last year's bill is instructive. A study conducted by SAIC (the same modeling firm the Energy Department uses for its own projections) for the American Council on Capital Formation, found that electricity prices would be expected to increase under anywhere between 101 percent and 129 percent by the year 2030. Prices at the pump would jump 77 percent to 145 percent-bringing not just $4 gasoline, but very possibly $8 gasoline or higher.

The estimated impact on disposable household income due to rising energy prices would then reach anywhere between $4,022 and $6,752. And because an energy tax is regressive, it will fall heaviest on poor and lower middle class folks who spend more of their income on energy.

President Obama himself described his plan in an interview with the San Francisco Chronicle last year this way:

Under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket... whatever the industry was, uh, they would have to retrofit their operations. That will cost money. They will pass that money on to consumers.

The new version of the plan in the Obama budget is much more aggressive, and reducing emissions another 20 percent will be dramatically more costly-possibly as much as double the cost since the additional cuts will come in the most difficult and expensive areas, like transportation and agriculture.

While the lost purchasing power for a typical household will decline by many thousands of dollars, the administration promises the plan will be "offset" by the $400 per worker rebate checks that were passed as part of the stimulus bill. Paying thousands and getting back hundreds is a bad deal for American families.

This is not a side-effect of his plan--it's the intended goal, which was clear when Obama said in his address to Congress that he wants to give so-called renewable energies a market advantage, which can only be done by imposing a tax that dramatically increases the cost of natural gas, oil, and coal.

This policy would destroy the only bright spot in the current economic environment, low energy prices, and cause severe economic pain. It should not even be contemplated if we are serious about addressing the country's economic crisis.

If they cut taxes instead of spending trillions, we wouldn't need to tax people to death to fund useless shit. Obama wants veterans to pay for their health benefits and wants to punish people for driving and using electricity. Yep, he REALLY cares about the American people. What if you just drive alot to get to your job? Should you be punished for that?

Our energy and emission problems could be solved (even in part) by nuclear power. France seems to be doing okay with it.

If they cut taxes instead of spending trillions, we wouldn't need to tax people to death to fund useless shit. Obama wants veterans to pay for their health benefits and wants to punish people for driving and using electricity. Yep, he REALLY cares about the American people. What if you just drive alot to get to your job? Should you be punished for that?

Our energy and emission problems could be solved (even in part) by nuclear power. France seems to be doing okay with it.

The enviro-nazi freaks dont want that. They want us spending trillions on unproven untestes unreliable expensive projects instead of what is proven to work.

On Tuesday, President Obama will announce his plan to increase everyoneís power bill. Or, as he puts it, ďa national plan to reduce carbon pollution, prepare our country for the impacts of climate change and lead global efforts to fight it.Ē

If you accept the science of global warming, then you accept the fact that the presidentís unilateral action on climate change will have absolutely no effect in terms of adjusting the global thermostat to a temperature Obama finds desirable. The rest of the developing world, anchored by India and China, are building carbon-burning factories, power plants and even whole new cities that will overwhelm any new rules the president may impose on Americans and our struggling economy.

Other recent events confirm the presidentís isolation and his lack of advisers who will challenge his biases, but even in this extreme isolation he must know his actions will have no effect on the Earthís climate. So why is he taking this step ó especially now, when our economy is so fragile? Driving up the cost of energy will, at the very least, add stress to U.S. households and further erode U.S. manufacturing.

As I have written before, I believe the president is ideologically motivated when it comes to global warming. He believes American lifestyles are unnecessarily wasteful and that we should temper our ambitions and adopt a lifestyle more to his liking. Essentially, it would suit him if we all lived in a college town and rode a bicycle. Also, I believe part of the presidentís motivation for his pointless act is punitive. Obama wants to punish America for its wasteful past. But of course, the rules donít apply to him and his family. A life of large homes, private jets, big cars and cash payments from the oil and gas industry await him in his private life. Just ask former vice president Al Gore. Voters notice that Democrats have a blind spot to the hypocrisy that surrounds global-warming politics.

The most recent poll I could find, conducted by the Pew Research Center following the presidentís inaugural address, said just 28 percent of Americans think ďdealing with global warmingĒ should be a priority for the president and Congress. Americans ranked this issue last out of 21 different priorities. And as usual, the poll identified the economy as the most important issue. Well, Obamaís obsession with global warming and his desire to inflict higher energy prices on the average American family will harm the economy and be bad for job growth.

Iím trying to imagine the list of accomplishments Democrats will recite in the midterm elections next year. As a partisan Republican, I hope they rally around the proposals Obama will be announcing tomorrow, and I hope GOP leaders in the House and Senate are able to force up-or-down votes on the presidentís plan. Letís see how many Democrats who will be facing voters in 16 months will be willing to sign on to his pointless, harmful crusade.